"New" Politics? Obama "Punching" and Pushing for Hillary to Drop Out (email included)

by D. Cupples  | Today's New York Times says that Barack Obama is coming out "punching," as do most other seasoned politicians while campaigning. Fair enough, but so much for "new" politics. 

Today, I received a mass email from campaign manager David Plouffe, which strongly implies that Hillary should drop out -- even after she won Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island.

Some Hillary-supporting Dems are outraged by premature calls for Hillary to occupy a coffin.  Some are reminded of George Bush's tactics during the 2000 recount here in Florida, where  surrogates chanted, "Hey, Gore -- give up, move on, make it easy for me."

I copied the email's text below. I'll forward it if you email me.  It has three calls for donations, incidentally, and some questionable statements that are vaguely reminiscent of Mr. Rove. (No offense to Obama supporters, you didn't write the email.)

"Our projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday's elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.

"That's a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.

"For comparison, that's less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone. It's also less than our net gain of 8 from Nebraska, or 12 from Washington State. And it's considerably less than our net gain of 33 delegates from Georgia.

"The task for the Clinton campaign yesterday was clear. In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead.

"They failed.

"It's clear, though, that Senator Clinton wants to continue an increasingly desperate, increasingly negative -- and increasingly expensive -- campaign to tear us down.

"That's her decision. But it's not stopping John McCain, who clinched the Republican nomination last night, from going on the offensive. He's already made news attacking Barack, and that will only become more frequent in the coming days.

"Right now, it's essential for every single supporter of Barack Obama to step up and help fight this two-front battle. In the face of attacks from Hillary Clinton and John McCain, we need to be ready to take them on.

"Will you make an online donation of $25 right now?

"https://donate.barackobama.com/delegates

"The chatter among pundits may have gotten better for the Clinton campaign after last night, but by failing to cut into our lead, the math -- and their chances of winning -- got considerably worse.

"Today, we still have a lead of more than 150 delegates, and there are only 611 pledged delegates left to win in the upcoming contests."

I must interject. Of the 4,048 voting delegates, 795 are un-pledged (Dem Party).  Of those 795 un-pledged delegates, 258 are congressmen, and 27 are governors -- some of whom may not want to vote differently from their constituencies.

There are 411 un-pledged delegates labeled "DNC members."  I don't know how many are elected state officials or how many would vote with their constituencies -- as opposed to voting with some other state's or district's voters.

In short, there's major uncertainty re: the total-delegate count -- which is what ultimately counts.  And yet, all Obama's operatives talk about is pledged delegates. Mr. Plouffe's email continues:

"By a week from today, we will have competed in Wyoming and Mississippi. Two more states and 45 more delegates will be off the table. 

"But if Senator Clinton wants to continue this, let's show that we're ready.

"Make an online donation of $25 now to show you're willing to fight for this:

"https://donate.barackobama.com/delegates

"This nomination process is an opportunity to decide what our party needs to stand for in this election.

"We can either take on John McCain with a candidate who's already united Republicans and Independents against us, or we can do it with a campaign that's united Americans from all parties around a common purpose."

I must interject again.  The Democratic party is split, close to 50-50, yet Mr. Plouffe claims that his camp has unified Americans "from all parties"?  Does this email exemplify Mr. Plouffe's chosen strategy for reaching out to Hillary-supporting Dems -- people who'd likely feel cheated if she were pushed to drop out prematurely?

Unfortunately, Mr. Plouffe isn't especially concise.  His email continues:

"We can debate John McCain about who can clean up Washington by nominating a candidate who's taken more money from lobbyists than he has, or we can do it with a campaign that hasn't taken a dime of their money because we've been funded by you."

I must interject yet again. Perhaps Obama hasn't taken money directly from lobbyists, but one of his campaign co-chairs is a pharma lobbyist.  When asked about it at a debate, Sen. Obama got caught on videotape saying "That's not true" -- when it was true.

Also, Sen. Obama essentially took an interest-free loan from a political player in Chicago who now faces a criminal trial.  The transaction might have been perfectly legal -- might be business as usual in Chicago -- but it doesn't evince clean hands or "new politics."

Center for Responsive Politics data suggests that Obama has taken special-interest money.  Yes, Hillary has also taken it.  Until our campaign-finance system is reformed, most politicians will.   

The problem is that Mr. Plouffe implies that Obama's hands are squeaky clean when they aren't.   Mr. Plouffe continues:

"We can present the American people with a candidate who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with McCain on the worst foreign policy disaster of our generation, and agrees with him that George Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt on Iran, or we can nominate someone who opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and will not support a march to war with Iran."

Once and for all, in 2002, Obama wasn't in the Senate and didn't have to risk his political career by actually voting against the Iraq war.

"John McCain may have a long history of straight talk and independent thinking, but he has made the decision in this campaign to offer four more years of the very same policies that have failed us for the last eight.

"We need a Democratic candidate who will present the starkest contrast to those failed policies of the past.

"And that candidate is Barack Obama.

"Please make a donation of $25 now: [in case you forgot the first 2 pleas]

"https://donate.barackobama.com/delegates

"Thank you,

"David

"David Plouffe
"Campaign Manager
"Obama for America

"Donate: https://donate.barackobama.com/delegates

"---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paid for by Obama for America
"This email was sent to: [email protected]
"To unsubscribe, go to: http://my.barackobama.com/unsubscribe"

Does this email evince Sen. Obama's idea of "new" politics -- erasing your competition so you don't have to face an tough contest?  If not, then he should have a sit-down with campaign officials and surrogates.

See Memeorandum for campaign commentary.

Related BN-Politics Posts:

* Hillary Clinton (Candidates' Positives, Part I)

* Obama: Because I Remember (Candidate Positives, Pt. II)

* Hillary Open to "Dream Ticket"...

Comments

[Adam]

I'm sorry, where in that letter did Plouffe call on Hillary Clinton to drop out? He didn't. They clearly doesn't LIKE her staying in, and doesn't hide that, but he even says "that's her decision", which it of course is. He doesn't even say "we feel she should drop out" or anything to that effect.

You're right that there are unpledged delegates, and they could swing heavily toward Clinton. But after Tuesday's very narrow Clinton victory, the overall Clinton strategy appears to hinge on the hope that the PLEOs swing very heavily to Clinton (more than they already do) and overturn Obama's lead in pledged delegates. Barring a major scandal, Hillary is simply not going to catch Obama in pledged delegates, and the Obama camp has every right to point this out.

Meanwhile, Hillary appears to have moved very close to running what will likely be John McCain's fall strategy - i.e. scare people about the all the bad stuff in the world, and claim the voters should vote for the older candidate with more foreign policy experience. Assuming she wins the nomination, this puts her in a difficult position for the fall: "forget about all that experience stuff people - we really want change". I'm not claiming this is duplicitous, but it means she's going to have to change message drastically if she wins in the fall, which does not bode well.

The only real issue in this message that you've pointed out is the campaign finance issue. Whether Obama's campaign is utterly clean or not, they do have a point there. If you read carefully, they said the CAMPAIGN hasn't taken any lobbyist money. That, I think, is true. I believe his presidential campaign has been fully funded through individual donors. Political speak, but true.

I'm not sure what "new politics" Obama is supposed to represent, but I'm not offended by this letter.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

I knew I'd hear from you on this. How are ya?

What I said: "Today, I received a mass email from campaign manager David Plouffe, which strongly implies that Hillary should drop out -- even after she won Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island."

That letter does just that. I'm NOT offended by it, though.

The reason I commented focused on the email is that another Obama supporter brought up (commenting on a dif post) that Obama's supporters may be calling for Hillary to get out, but he and his campaign officials aren't.

You're right: strong implications aren't the exact same as saying "Hillary, please get out." But the message in Plouffe's letter is pretty clear.

As for pledged delegates: we agree. Hillary likely won't catch up. Here's what I put in the other post:

"Obama seems to want the unpledged delegates to simply vote the same way that the majority of the pledged delegates nationwide did (i.e., vote for him) -- even if it's a small majority -- and without regard for how their state's voters actually voted.

"Clinton seems to want the un-pledged delegates to vote the same way that the majority in the delegates' states voted (i.e., vote for her); in that case, she would take a big chunk just from her wins in California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Ohio.

"BOTH HAVE VALID POINTS of view. Whichever way the un-pledged delegates go, massive rancor could erupt within a big segment of the Democratic party."

http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/03/clinton-open-to.html

As for "new" politics: it IS important. Starting in January, Obama has run on a plank of changing how things are done in Washington (i.e., new politics.)

He has -- by implied comparison -- represented himself as being above the fray AND cleaner than Hillary. That's easy to do when one is winning and the media is nice to one.

What we're finding is that as the situation gets less comfy for Obama's campaign, he is lowering himself into the same gutter that he implicitly accused Hillary of occupying.

Anyway, I just hope that the "Dream Ticket" will happen.

I hope you don't think that I've been TRYING to (falsely) hold myself out as neutral. I like Hillary better. Period.

That doesn't mean that I don't see some good things about Obama or things I don't like about Hillary.

I've worked on too many campaigns to believe that ANY candidate is anywhere near perfect (by my definition, I mean). That and as a lawyer, I have a somewhat analytical (and cynical) streak.

[Adam]

I have no problem at all with anything you wrote there, and I don't feel you've been misrepresenting yourself in any way.

It's pretty likely that things will be close enough that both candidates will be able to make an argument (based on votes, or pledged delegates, or votes in battleground states, or whatever other measure served their purpose) that they deserve the support of the PLEOs. No matter who wins, the other camp will have an argument. Nevertheless, the popular media story will be a lot more critical of a PLEO-driven Hillary win than a pledged delegate Obama win. That's just how it will go. That doesn't mean it's right, but it's how it will go.

I think a Hillary/Obama "dream ticket" is quite possible, even likely, if Hillary wins. Strategically, it's the right move for her. An Obama/Hillary ticket makes less sense, strategically, for Obama. This is part of the reason we are starting to hear diverging opinions from the opposing camps on the "dream ticket". (The other reason is that Clinton probably feels that a lot of undecided Democrats will be more willing to go with Clinton if they think they get Obama too.)

Sorry, I really didn't know what you meant by "new politics". Broadly speaking, whether or not Obama's campaign attacks Clinton and/or pressures her to drop out of the race, has very little to do with Obama's themes of bipartisan action and ethics reforms.

Although Obama's support has clearly been eroded by the Clinton attack ads, I think his best strategy is still to take the high road. Firing back agressively at Clinton isn't likely to get her out of the race faster, and he's going to take a pledged delegate lead to Denver either way. I've got Obama winning Mississippi, Wyoming, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, while Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Even if Clinton wins re-votes in Michigan and Florida, it's pretty much a wash. Obama should act like the front-runner and avoid focussing on negative attacks on Hillary.

[WMD]

I'm not convinced there's room for criticism anywhere. Campaigning always gets nastier as the stakes get higher and BOTH sides are guilty. Does it disqualify the offender? Does is more-qualify the offendee?

If the supporters of both sides keep sniping at one another we'll create a gulf so deep and filled with vile that when the one nominee is determined it will take precious time to build a bridge over that gulf.

This is time wasted that otherwise must be spent galvanizing the Democratic Party, its base and the millions of Independents (and a whole bunch of Republicans) who are hoping (yes, I used the H-word!), praying and working for a Democrat to become president in November.

That wasted time and continued in-fighting is precisely what the Resmuglicans enjoy seeing: Democrats forgetting who their TRUE opponent is and instead figting with each other.

I won't be a part of that. I will work with the goal in mind that the MOST IMPORTANT THING is to guarantee a Democrat-either Democrat-gets elected as the next President of the United States.

[Adam]

Really interesting report today comparing McCain vs. Clinton to McCain v. Obama:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

Ignoring states that are the same in both matchups, Clinton wins Florida, Arkansas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New Jersey, while Obama wins Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, South Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire, and some of proportinal Nebraska. Both beat McCain; Obama gets 280 to Clinton's 276.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

I saw that report yesterday and the two maps. The limitations on that report are very real (not just with respect to Obama's doing better than Hillary in November but also re: O and H doing better than McCain).

Again, it really depends on whether a significant number of Obama's OR Hillary's supporters end up feeling cheated based on how the nominee is picked.

That and what sort of things come out about McCain and the ultimate Dem nominee between June and November.

Lastly, I suspect that McCain will soon start campaigning with an aim at getting libs and moderates.

[Adam]

Oh sure, it's all vastly speculative at this point. We've got a couple hundred news cycles to go through before November. The final results are meaningless, but it's interesting to see where Obama and Clinton's relative support versus McCain is different.

Unless things get really really ugly (and admittedly, they are now starting to head that way) a victorious Clinton will be able to placate the Obamaphiles by putting him on the ticket. It will be trickier for Obama since he's less likely to put Clinton on the ticket, but in the end most Clinton supporters (who are largely rank and file democrats) would recognize how much closer they are on policy to Obama than McCain.

McCain will determine a lot with his VP selection. If he tabs Lieberman it makes things extremely interesting. I don't think any other likely choices (Charlie Crist is the choice du jour) drastically alter the landscape. A Huckabee-ish choice flatlines the chance that social liberals like me would vote for McCain.

[Janet Reno]

Obama’s efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten’s of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq’s Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin “Tony” Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges — Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It’s time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It’s time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It’s time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

[Janet]

Many Hillary supporter are, without a doubt, supporting Obama. I read an article by one Hillary support, Pam Jackson, on http://www.posterspost.com about why she plans to support Obama. She makes some good points.

[Janet]

Many Hillary supporter are, without a doubt, supporting Obama. I read an article by one Hillary support, Pam Jackson, on http://www.posterspost.com about why she plans to support Obama. She makes some good points.

[Deb]

Janet,

Me, I haven't yet decided what I'll do in November. I have 5 months to ponder.

I suspect that many Hillary supporters will support Obama, but that doesn't mean that he's out of the woods. Hillary has roughly 18 million supporters.

Even if only 10% of them oppose Obama, that would be 1.8 million. That's almost 4 times more votes than Gore won by in 2000 (popular vote).

My problem with Obama ISN'T that he's not Hillary. As a blogger and policy wonk and lawyer, I've looked into some issues during this race.

My problems with Obama are that 1) he has misled voters about some of his stances (like lobbyists' dollars), 2) he hasn't really shown us who he is, and 3) he doesn't have much of a record to show us where he really stands.

All we can do is guess -- or believe what he says, despite his repeated (though not constant) misleading statements.